Africa deserves the same opportunity for development that the West took for granted, unburdened by a green agenda that keeps the continent energy-poor and dependent.
Guest essay by Ronald Stein, Dr. Robert Jeffrey and Olivia Vaughan
For South Africa and Sub-Saharan Africa where electricity deficits stifle growth, Small Modular Reactors (SMRs) offer a promising solution.
With the Trump Administration poised to reshape global electricity policy, the U.S. has a unique opportunity to lead the West in supporting Africa’s electricity-driven progress through SMRs. The Trump administration should lead Western nations in abandoning hypocritical restrictions and thus become a collaborator in advancing African electricity security
The Electricity Crisis in Sub-Saharan Africa
Sub-Saharan Africa faces a dire electricity crisis. Over 600 million people—more than 40% of the continent’s population—lack access to electricity, a figure projected to rise to 657 million by 2030 without intervention. This deficit hampers industrialization, healthcare, and education, trapping millions in poverty. South Africa, with its Koeberg Nuclear Power Station is the only country in Africa with operational nuclear power, yet even here, electricity reliability remains a challenge.
The West has built its prosperity on an abundant supply chain of products and transportation fuels made from fossil fuels, and abundant electricity. Now, through the Marshall Plan, it pressures Africa to adopt renewable-heavy policies that prioritizes climate goals over developmental reality. Solar and wind can only generate intermittent electricity and is costly in regions with limited grid infrastructure, unable to deliver the consistent baseload power required for industrial growth.
Forcing Africa into a renewable-only path risks perpetuating electricity poverty, a form of hypocrisy that is bullying the world’s poor.
Small Modular Reactors: A Game-Changer for Africa
Enter Small Modular Reactors, a technology ideally suited to address Africa’s electricity challenges. Unlike traditional large-scale nuclear plants, which require significant upfront costs and extensive water for cooling, SMRs are compact, scalable, and designed for flexibility. With outputs typically ranging from 10 to 300 MW, SMRs can power small towns, mining operations, or urban centers, making them perfect for Africa’s diverse and often remote landscapes.
South Africa has emerged as a global leader in SMR development, particularly through its Pebble Bed Modular Reactor (PBMR) and its successor, the HTMR-100. Initiated in the 1990s, the PBMR uses helium gas for cooling, eliminating the need for large water bodies—a critical advantage in arid regions. The HTMR-100, developed privately after the PBMR project stalled in 2010 due to financial constraints, is designed for rapid deployment and affordability, with off-the-shelf components reducing costs. A single unit can power a large town or mining complex, and its fuel can be safely stockpiled for years, ensuring reliability even in remote areas.
Recent developments signal a revival. South Africa’s Energy Minister has committed to a 2,500 MW nuclear build program, explicitly endorsing SMRs.
The Nuclear Renaissance and U.S. Leadership
The global resurgence of nuclear power, spurred by the Trump Administration’s recent executive orders, aligns with Africa’s needs. By addressing regulatory, supply, and siting challenges, these orders have ignited a nuclear stock rally, with companies like Nano Nuclear, Oklo, and NuScale leading the charge. As U.S. Interior Secretary Doug Burgum declared, “Mark this day on your calendar. This is going to turn the clock back on over 50 years of overregulation.” Whether this marks a true nuclear renaissance or a speculative bubble, the market’s optimism backed by bipartisan support, signals a shift toward nuclear power as a reliable, clean electricity source.
For Africa, Generation IV SMRs offer a transformative opportunity. Their modular design allows factory-based construction and on-site assembly, reducing costs and deployment times compared to traditional reactors. In countries with nuclear experience like South Africa, SMRs could be deployed in as little as about 5 years. Technologies like the HTMR-100, with passive safety features, enhance safety and minimize risks, addressing concerns about radiation and proliferation.
The Role of the Trump Administration
The Trump Administration’s pro-nuclear stance presents a golden opportunity. By investing in SMR projects, the U.S. can support Africa’s electricity goals while fostering economic partnerships. It’s time to reject Western bullying and prioritize Africa’s development, countering its reliance on foreign powers like Russia and China, which dominate nuclear exports to Africa.
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) relies on the Linear No-Threshold (LNT) model, established in the 1950s, to regulate radiation exposure, assuming all doses linearly increase cancer risk. However, this model is criticized for ignoring biological evidence of DNA repair, apoptosis, and adaptive responses that mitigate low-dose radiation effects, potentially overestimating harm from nuclear power plant releases by orders of magnitude.
Studies, including those from high-background radiation areas and animal models, suggest low doses may stimulate protective responses (hormesis). The LNT model’s adoption, influenced by historical anti-nuclear biases rather than low-dose data, drives overly conservative regulations, inflating costs and public fear.
The NRC should urgently review LNT against threshold or hormesis models, integrating modern biological and epidemiological evidence, to ensure regulations reflect current science and balance safety with practicality.
Seizing the Moment
Africa’s right to develop is undeniable, and SMRs are a critical tool to achieve it. South Africa’s leadership in SMR technology, coupled with growing interest across Sub-Saharan Africa, signals a path to electricity security and economic growth. The Trump Administration can lead the West in supporting this vision, dismantling restrictive green mandates and investing in Africa’s nuclear future. Denying Africa access to electricity is not justice—it’s a betrayal. By championing SMRs, the U.S. can help power Africa’s rise, ensuring prosperity for the continent and stability for the world. The time to act is now.
Originally published July 21, 2025, at America Out Loud NEWS
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
“…the PBMR uses helium gas for cooling, eliminating the need for large water bodies—a critical advantage in arid regions…”. Utter nonsense. The need for water is established by the thermal power of any reactor or any gas or coal power station. It has nothing to do with the choice of reactor coolant. As to the viability of SMRs in general, the attempt by the Nuscale company to build a cluster of SMRs in Idaho failed because the cost of electricity from the cluster would have been about four times that of already available electricity in the region. The local utilities simply declined to sign up. Can SMRs technically functional? Of course, but for those using liquid sodium or molten salt for the reactor coolant as shown by such reactors built in the past. Operational and maintenance difficulties and cost with these machines were substantial.
If the helium “cooled” PBMR uses a gas turbine cycle, the reject temperatures are high enough to eliminate the use of cooling water. GA proposed a gas turbine cycle for their HTGR back in the 1970’s.
That makes them thermodynamically inefficient as with single cycle gas turbine generators. Such generators are sometimes needed in grids with lots of wind and solar electricity to accommodate sudden large increases and decreases in supply because of wind and cloud changes although modern dual cycle (gas and steam) gas turbine generators may be able to accommodate such rapid changes as well; I don’t know. The use of single cycle gas machines is one of the reasons that wind and solar electricity is so expensive in an actual grid. I have a hard time believing that a PBMR owner would want to throw away the income a steam cycle provides. I believe that most if not all gas cooled power reactors which have been built and operated are steam-cycle machines where the hot gas from the reactor is used to boil water. All 14 of the UK’s Advanced Gas Reactors are, for example as well as Peach Bottom 1 and Ft. St. Vrain in the US, both retired long ago because of design flaws. The current General Atomics HTGR design is steam cycle as well.
Using helium for coolant isn’t nonsense. It’s been done already. The “pebbles” in a PBR are a sphere filled with a bunch of small pieces of enriched uranium. There’s just enough to increase fission but below the amount required to produce enough heat to melt. The spheres are coated with 7 alternating layers of graphite and ceramic to ensure that if any layers crack, the cracks are very unlikely to align all the way through to the interior. The layers ensure that the sphere’s contents are kept far enough apart to prevent melting temperature heat buildup. If the helium flow through the pebble container stops, the container will heat up to a certain temperature and no higher. If there’s a leak, any of the helium that might have been converted to a radioactive isotope floats up and away.
Helium cooled pebble bed reactors are the safest design because if there’s a problem they don’t melt or explode, they just sit there doing nothing. A small test one operated in Germany for over 20 years. France has used PBRs. China recently brought a large on online.
So now your ignorance on this matter should be cured.
The report on the Chinese unit also mentioned that they had ‘refueled’ it while it was operating.
I did not say that using helium as the reactor coolant was nonsense. What I said was that claiming that such a coolant dispenses with the need for water cooling of the heat-to-electricity cycle is nonsense. There are many helium cooled gas reactors running today, but all use a steam cycle to convert the heat of the fission process to electricity. Please read more carefully in the future.
Why not modern coal?
exactly…don’t try to learn how to fly if you can’t barely walk
You might find the dialog from Jusper on X interesting. He is living it now.
@JusperMachogu
Personally, I think the notion of widespread “Small Modular Reactors” is utopian. It’s based on the assumption that a 60MW SMR will be 17 times cheaper, 17 times safer, 17 times easier to site, and require only 1/17th the staff of a 1000 MW reactor. Color me skeptical. And yes, for most designs, you WILL need a massive containment structure.
That said, there looks to be some need for small reactors. Nome, Alaska population about 4000 and a long way from anywhere probably doesn’t need a 600 MW conventional reactor.
What’s interesting about this design is that a Pebble Bed Reactor (PBR). PBRs consist of a pile of “pebbles” –ceramic coated cobbles of graphite and fissionable material — cooled by an insert gas (Helium,Nitrogen,CO2). In concept, if it fails, it fails safe without human intervention. You just end up with a very hot pile of “rocks” not Chernobyl. That’s the concept anyway. As is not uncommon, the real world is not quite that simple.
The Germans played around with PBRs, built some working prototypes. They had some problems, Not catastrophic, but significant, The Germans gave up. South Africa and China currently have PBRs running, but neither is at the point of setting up a production line and stamping them out in volume.
There’s a pretty good Wikipedia article https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pebble-bed_reactor
Put me down for a nano.
SMALL MODULAR REACTORS
https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/small-modular-reactors
.
SMRs sounds good, but the electricity cost/kWh would be at least 2 times gas fired CCGT plants.
Such plants are up to 60% efficient, have very low CO2/kWh.
.
It would take at least 5 to 8 years to build SMRs at a rate of say 50 units per year, because the US no longer has the thousands of educated and trained nuclear engineering professionals capable of designing any nuclear plants.
The US lost that capability after Three Mile Island in March, 1979, more than 45 years ago.
.
Also, the US has not enough working-age people who 1) know how to do more complicated stuff, 2) care enough to do it, 3) have the work ethic and mental discipline, or 4) are otherwise inspired to make them selves useful.
Factories have 400,000 unfilled jobs, but there are few skilled, ambitious people to take them.
People have weird expectations; they want to make big bucks doing nothing.
.
The US has a total lack of Science/Technology/Engineering/Mathematics (STEM) professionals who are in high places to call the shots.
The US has been filling the shortfall with Chinese, Indian, etc., STEM folks.
The vacuum at the top was filled by lawyer/liberal arts/enviro functionaries who know next to nothing, except obstruction; Hochul, Newsom, etc., are demagogue-style examples.
.
At present, no country is set up to produce, say 50 SMRs per year, at 200 MW each.
China, Russia, South Korea, and the US, with large command/control economies, would be the only countries able set up the required A-to-Z infrastructures.
.
A 500 MW (2 units at 250 MW each) CCGT power plant can be built in two years, at a turnkey cost of $2000/kW.
New York State has finally agreed to allow the building of the gas pipeline from Pennsylvania to New England.
.
If four countries were building 50 SMRs/y each, it would require:
.
Increased uranium mining,
Processing the uranium into fuel bundles,
Constructing factories to produce components and subassemblies,
Constructing factories for assembling the final units near harbors.
Shipping the assembled unis to the site, likely by ship or barge,
Selection and preparation of the site near harbors,
Adding the remaining balance of plant systems,
Plant test operation of each subsystem,
Connecting the plant to the grid, with switchyard,
Test operation of the entire plant,
Commissioning the plant to produce electricity at design output
.
AI systems require lots of steady electricity
Each major AI system should be required to have its own power plant
.
By definition, weather-dependent, variable/intermittent, grid-disturbing, heavily subsidized, expensive wind and solar systems do not qualify.
https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/high-cost-kwh-of-w-s-systems-foisted-onto-a-brainwashed-public-1
“the US no longer has the thousands of educated and trained nuclear engineering professionals capable of designing any nuclear plants. “
Not a problem. We’ll use AI. AI can do anything humans can. Faster. And Cheaper. And Better. </SARC>
The SMRs shipped to Africa and other such areas, would be built in Europe, the US, Russia, Korea, China and then shipped by special barges to Africa.
The SMRs would stay on the barges and send power to shore.
No fuss, no muss
It occurred to me after a while that the lack of trained nuclear facility designers might not be as severe a limitation as you suggest. One of the purported virtues of SMRs is that they are standardized designs. Little or no engineering required to push yet another reactor out the door of the factory. Facility design still needs folk with specialized knowledge, but it’s not clear how many man-years per facility. Then there’s the mountain of paperwork required for permitting and the effort required to persuade the local citizenry to quit chaining themselves to the fence out front in protest against anything nuclear IN THEIR BACKYARD. But while the US may be short of engineers, if there are two things we are not short of it is lawyers and PR types.
In other words, the USA has become the B Ark. Don’t Panic.
Wow, talk about not knowing. You really don’t know much about nuclear technology. For example, most of the engineers who work on the design, operation, and maintenance of nuclear plants have mechanical engineering degrees. The “balance of plant” for nuclear plants is, for most designs, a steam generator/turbine system — same as in most fossil-fuel plants. Then there are the electrical engineers for the control systems and systems engineers who coordinate the design work of individual components to fit into the overall design. And don’t forget the civil engineers needed to design and construct the buildings, but that work is usually contracted out to A&E firms, who do plenty of business outside of the nuclear industry.
Very few people who design nuclear plants have or even need a nuclear engineering degree. Nevertheless, the stream of them coming out of schools — places like the University of Tennessee, North Carolina State University, Texas A&M, Penn State, the Ohio State University, the University of Michigan, and a host of others, even Berkeley — has remained fairly steady. There is not a supply issue with the small number of highly educated professionals needed to apply specialized skills for the small portion of the plant that is nuclear technology.
You’re basically saying that Americans are too dumb to do anything more complicated than pulling something out of the ground and burning it. That’s caveman thinking.
.
.
.
.
.
Don’t worry yourself. There’s always the remaining 80% of the world.
Did you mean the remaining 96% of the world? The US accounts for about 4% of global population.
Coal, nuclear, gas, and hydro.
All of the above.
None of the below:
Wind, solar, unicorn farts, and fairy dust.
QED
Eco-colonialism won’t allow the kaffirs to rise above their station.
A nitpick: IIRC, the Marshall Plan was the U.S.’s effort to rebuild Europe after WWII. Is this a new Marshall Plan?
‘Is this a new Marshall Plan?’
Hopefully not.
https://mises.org/mises-wire/marshall-plan-isnt-success-story-you-think-it
https://theconservativetreehouse.com/blog/2025/07/27/the-marshall-plan-is-over-eu-commission-president-ursula-von-der-leyen-announces-details-of-u-s-eu-trade-agreement/
https://www.copenhagenatomics.com
They are offering molten salt loops, purified salts, salt tanks, and molten salt testing services. Take your pick.
Coal = cheaper + easier.
Everyone is obsessed with generating electricity – the how – with a resurgence of interest in nuclear THE most expensive form of spinning generation, but few actually consider how it will be transmitted from point of generation to point of consumption. The UK is a great example. Nothing is being done to upgrade and extend the local, low voltage supply to cope with the huge increase in load an all-electric energy supply will bring. All the money is being tossed at wind and solar, battery storage and hydrogen fantasies, and of course a renewed interest in nuclear.
The “game changer” for Africa would be build a grid first. Good luck with that!
And people who yap on about Africa overlook one very important factor – Africans are useless when it comes to infrastructure, particularly maintaining it. It’s cultural among people who have a recent history of hunter-gatherer, where nature provides, and long term doesn’t matter because next season will bring what you need, all the stuff to build/repair your dwelling grows around you.
The British built infrastructure during colonial times, left it intact at independence, since fallen into ruin. Infrastructure in Rhodesia-become-Zimbabwe started to decay within two years of Black majority rule. South Africa… since Mandela took his long walk to freedom, the grid there is in such a poor condition blackouts are routine.
Before solving Africa’s problems, the people who have the solutions should visit it a few times.
I agree. I designed large coal and nuclear plants in the 70s
Coal plants are much, much easier to design, build and operate.
COAL ELECTRICITY LESS COSTLY, AVAILABLE NOW, NOT PIE IN THE SKY, LIKE EXPENSIVE FUSION AND SMAL MODULAR NUCLEAR
https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/coal-electricity-less-costly-available-now-not-pie-in-the-sky
.
Coal gets very little direct subsidies in the US.
Here is an example of the lifetime cost of a coal plant.
The key is running steadily at 90% output for 50 years, on average
.
Assume mine-mouth coal plant in Wyoming; 1800 MW (three x 600 MW); turnkey-cost $10 b; life 50 y; CF 0.9; no direct subsidies.
Payments to bank, $5 b at 6% for 50 y; $316 m/y x 50 = $15.8 b
Payments to Owner, $5 b at 10% for 50 y; $504 m/y x 50 = $21.2 b
Lifetime production, base-loaded, 1800 x 8766 x 0.9 x 50 = 710,046,000 MWh
Ignored cost; O&M escalates at 4%; insurance escalates at 4%; taxes; periodic overhauls.
.
For lower electricity cost/kWh, borrow more money, say 70%
Traditional Nuclear has similar economics; life 60 to 80 y; CF 0.9
.
Wyoming coal, at mine-mouth $15/US ton, 8600 Btu/lb, plant efficiency 40%, Btu/ton = 2000 x 8600 = 17.2 million
Lifetime coal use = 710,046,000,000 kWh/y x (3412 Btu/kWh/0.4)/17,200,000 Btu/US ton = 353 million US ton
Lifetime coal cost = $5.3 billion
Electricity cost = (15.8 + 21.2 + 5.3) x 1,000,000,000/710,046,000,000 = 6 c/kWh; this cost will be higher, because some costs were ignored.
The Owner can deduct interest on borrowed money, and can depreciate the plant over 50 y, or less, which helps him achieve his 10% return on investment; that is a general government subsidy.
For perspective, China used 2204.62/2000 x 4300 = 4740 million US ton in 2024
SMRs, like wind power, seem on the surface to offer a simple, cheap, reliable and even cuddly, source of electricity.
Until reality intervenes, as it inevitably will.
Perhaps it’s time to frame the Left’s reluctance to let Africa have reliable access to electricity through the lens of racism. For sure, ignorance and intellectual laziness are the driving factors, but there is no denying the disparate impact.
S. Africa needs regime change – no help for a criminal party. Africa has a somewhat concentrated population – maybe 75% of pop on 30% of land. You cannot afford to extend power lines into the boondocks for a small pop.
South Africa? I got the impression that they were shutting down their electrical grid.
SMRs, SMRs —- ???
Has not nuclear been the source of power for all the US aircraft carrier fleet?
What am I missing…
The military is not too concerned with cost…..and there is a huge free cooler located next to their reactors called the ocean.
In addition to antigtiff’s excellent points, these:
— don’t have to be much concerned about/take measures to protect against earthquakes, tsunamis, terrorists attacks, etc.
— don’t have to worry about obtaining a land site and associated NIMBY political issues
— don’t have to worry about environment impact statement (EIS)
— don’t have to worry about liability insurance
— don’t have to worry about ROI and other variable economics, including maintenance and refueling and decommissioning costs.
Unfortunately any potential technical opportunity will be destroyed by the pervasive corruption in the ruling party (the ANC) in RSA.
The above article is a nice fluff piece for marketing, but comes up short on accuracy.
For example, in the second paragraph under the subheading “The Electricity Crisis in Sub-Saharan Africa”, there is this statement:
“Now, through the Marshall Plan, it pressures Africa to adopt renewable-heavy policies that prioritizes climate goals over developmental reality.”
Really? The only “Marshall Plan” of note of which I am aware expired long ago and was related to US government providing aid to Western Europe from 1948 to 1951. A Web search does not reveal any current US governmental plan using the name “Marshall” that is associated with Africa. So, despite the claim, it’s not at all clear as to what US action leads to the conclusion, as the subsequent paragraph boldly states,:
“Forcing Africa into a renewable-only path risks perpetuating electricity poverty, a form of hypocrisy that is bullying the world’s poor.”
Next, there is this paragraph:
“Enter Small Modular Reactors, a technology ideally suited to address Africa’s electricity challenges. Unlike traditional large-scale nuclear plants, which require significant upfront costs and extensive water for cooling, SMRs are compact, scalable, and designed for flexibility. With outputs typically ranging from 10 to 300 MW, SMRs can power small towns, mining operations, or urban centers, making them perfect for Africa’s diverse and often remote landscapes.”
This idealistic view fails to recognize that most large-scale nuclear fission power plants that relay on steam turbine technology (essentially, that use a Rankine energy conversion cycle) to generate electricity—as will any planned SMR—have an overall thermal conversion efficiency of only about 30%. Due to their smaller size (having larger surface area-to-volume ratio) “compact” SMRs will likely have a lower overall thermal conversion efficiency . . . let’s optimistically say it’s 25%. This means that about 3 times the rated electrical power output (in kW) will have to be dissipated continuously as waste heat during operation. Therefore, using the range of 10-300 MW claimed to be available electrical output from SMRs, any user of such will have to plan on dissipating something between 30 and 900 MW from a single SMR . . . this is not technically feasible using just forced air-cooling (i.e., fans), so that in turn means that any SMR within this range of output power will need to use active water cooling and thus have to be located near a fairly large source of water, such as an ocean, large lake or large river. So much for being “perfect for Africa’s diverse and often remote landscapes.”
As for the article’s statements:
“South Africa has emerged as a global leader in SMR development, particularly through its Pebble Bed Modular Reactor (PBMR) and its successor, the HTMR-100.”
and
“The HTMR-100, developed privately after the PBMR project stalled in 2010 due to financial constraints, is designed for rapid deployment and affordability, with off-the-shelf components reducing costs.”,
one only need note that article co-author Olivia Vaughan is co-founder of Stratek Global, the company actively marketing the not-yet-commercially-proven HTMR-100 SMR.
Finally, as regards this statement in the above article:
“By investing in SMR projects, the U.S. can support Africa’s electricity goals while fostering economic partnerships.”
this is actually a not-so-subtle admission that SMR technology, as represented by the HTMR-100 design, is not so obvious a “winner” economically/commercially that it is able to stand on its own merits without government assistance . . . kinda like the current situation in the US with EVs (hah!)
Let’s not limit ourselves to SMR. Some areas of Africa have plenty of natural resources, let’s develop them. Use SMR where needed and traditional nuclear where possible.
In the meantime we should put that worthless International Criminal Court to work investigating those nations and organizations who have demanded Africa remain in the Stone Age.
And use whose money to pay for that first commercially-unproven technology or for that second very expensive, multi-decade-to-implement technology?
And how much more $$$ will have to go to pay-off the usual corrupt government officials to get the permits to build and operate those power plants in most African nations?
And, not easily dismissed, what is the additional cost and timeline to build out the “grid” to reliably distribute electrical power far from the site(s) of any SMR or conventional nuclear power station?
My guess is the same people pushing wind and solar, where is that coming from?